IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10789 of 2024 Samir Kumar Bose, son of Satyendra Nath Bose, resident of village- Rikhiya, Baghakura, Nayachikat, Mohanpur, P.O.- Mohanour, P.S.- Mohanpur, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) … Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shushant Kumar Ghosh, son of late Jagdish Chandra Ghosh, resident of Kokar Industrial Area, Kokar, presently at Ghoshbandi, Choudhary Bagan, Deepatoli, P.O. Sadar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand … Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate --- 03/30.01.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.109 of 2023, for the offences registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,474,427,452,506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Sri Ram Kumar Lal Gupta, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. Bail Application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide B.A. No.5209 of 2024 by order dated 18.09.2024. It is alleged that petitioner executed fake power of attorney in favour of one Nirmal Kumar Sharma showing himself to be owner of the land, which actually belonged to the brother of the informant namely Prashant Kumar Ghose. On the basis of this fake power of attorney, Nirmal Kumar Sharma sold the said land to co-accused persons. It was submitted that petitioner is old man aged about 76 years and is admitted in hospital. It was further submitted that co-accused Santosh Kumar Sahu and Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Sahu having similar allegation, have been granted bail by this Court vide B.A. No.9468 of 2024 with B.A. No.10308 of 2024. It was further submitted that the entire sale deed was merely a paper transaction as the possession of land was not transferred to the purchaser. -2- Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but admitted that land in question is still in the possession of the brother of the informant. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353, wherein it was held that when the document is valid no question arises of its cancellation. When the document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non est in the eye of the law, as it would be a nullity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sale deed executed on the basis of fake power of attorney executed by the present petitioner is void ab initio, as such, the right, title and possession of the actual owner has not come under cloud. In view of the submission made above, I am inclined to release the petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Ram Kumar Lal Gupta, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi or his successor, in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.109 of 2023. (Ambuj Nath, J.) Jay/-